Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

how high is a snare drum's peak SPL?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:23:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hello sound peeps,

in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want. i emailed
josephson asking if i should get the c42H high level version instead of
the standard one, and they suggested trying the standard first, as the
high level version is a lot noisier, thus reducing it's usefulness on
quieter sources. how high do snare drum peaks get, worst case SPL with
the mic within 3-5 inches? say a 300 pound drummer with 2B sticks
hammering a loud brass shell snare, hitting a rimshot. the standard
c42 clips at 135 dB SPL. the c42H can do 155! thanks.

SB
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 2:10:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<seanbroderick20003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
>josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want. i emailed
>josephson asking if i should get the c42H high level version instead of
>the standard one, and they suggested trying the standard first, as the
>high level version is a lot noisier, thus reducing it's usefulness on
>quieter sources. how high do snare drum peaks get, worst case SPL with
>the mic within 3-5 inches? say a 300 pound drummer with 2B sticks
>hammering a loud brass shell snare, hitting a rimshot. the standard
>c42 clips at 135 dB SPL. the c42H can do 155! thanks.

First of all, I don't think you'll exceed 135 dB SPL. Also you should note
that this is a spec _across the band_. It's worst case... midrange
frequencies can probably go well above that before the mike clips.

Then again, maybe clipping the snare a little might sharpen it up. That
was a typical 1980s trick.

Also try the Sennheiser 441 and the Audio-Technica N/D 468, too. They
don't sound the same, but they both are more directional and less crisp.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 4:21:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<seanbroderick20003@yahoo.com>
>
> in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
> josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want. i emailed
> josephson asking if i should get the c42H high level version instead of
> the standard one, and they suggested trying the standard first, as the
> high level version is a lot noisier, thus reducing it's usefulness on
> quieter sources. how high do snare drum peaks get, worst case SPL with
> the mic within 3-5 inches? say a 300 pound drummer with 2B sticks
> hammering a loud brass shell snare, hitting a rimshot. the standard
> c42 clips at 135 dB SPL. the c42H can do 155! thanks.
>


** Better go for the C42H.

A snare can easily exceed 135 dB SPL peak at that range.



......... Phil
Related resources
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 8:09:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

seanbroderick20003@yahoo.com wrote:

> hello sound peeps,
>
> in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
> josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want.

What do you expect from an outdated piece of trash ?

Graham
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 2:41:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

OK if an SM-57 is outdated then a U-47 must be completely archaic and
should be sent to the scrap heap!
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 2:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'll gladly recycle everyone's outdated mics at no charge!
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:12:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey"
>>
>>in my quest for a better sounding close snare mic, i'm gonna give a
>>josephson c42 a try. a 57 is not giving me what i want. i emailed
>>josephson asking if i should get the c42H high level version instead of
>>the standard one, and they suggested trying the standard first, as the
>>high level version is a lot noisier, thus reducing it's usefulness on
>>quieter sources. how high do snare drum peaks get, worst case SPL with
>>the mic within 3-5 inches? say a 300 pound drummer with 2B sticks
>>hammering a loud brass shell snare, hitting a rimshot. the standard
>>c42 clips at 135 dB SPL. the c42H can do 155! thanks.
>
> First of all, I don't think you'll exceed 135 dB SPL. Also you should
> note
> that this is a spec _across the band_. It's worst case... midrange
> frequencies can probably go well above that before the mike clips.



** Huh ??

More mindless drivel from the rubber band mechanic.

Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with at an audio frequency ????

Never.

The C42 is speced at 8.5mV / uBar and the C42 H is 0.8mV/ uBar - so, 135
dB SPL corresponds to an output of 0.95 volts from the C42 and 0.095 volts
from the C42H.




............ Phil
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:12:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:12:58 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>** Huh ??
>
>More mindless drivel from the rubber band mechanic.
>
>Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
>varies with at an audio frequency ????
>
>Never.
>
>The C42 is speced at 8.5mV / uBar and the C42 H is 0.8mV/ uBar - so, 135
>dB SPL corresponds to an output of 0.95 volts from the C42 and 0.095 volts
>from the C42H.

PV=RT.

Chris Hornbeck
August 2, 2005 4:13:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 03:02:37 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
<chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:

>PV=RT

Isn't that the universal gas law? I always knew there was a lot of
hot air here!

Julian
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:13:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:12:58 +1000, "Phil Allison"
><philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>>** Huh ??
>>
>>More mindless drivel from the rubber band mechanic.
>>
>>Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
>>varies with at an audio frequency ????
>>
>>Never.
>>
>>The C42 is speced at 8.5mV / uBar and the C42 H is 0.8mV/ uBar - so, 135
>>dB SPL corresponds to an output of 0.95 volts from the C42 and 0.095 volts
>>from the C42H.
>
>PV=RT.

On that mike, the capsule will hit maximum excursion before the pre-amp
clips. So the limiting factor for clipping is going to be the capsule.
This is why the clipping point is frequency-dependant.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:51:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3l8355F114vllU1@individual.net> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:

> Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
> varies with at an audio frequency ????

Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics. That's
almost never. If you're going to change the subject, at least get your
terms right.

Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:51:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <3l8355F114vllU1@individual.net> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:
>
> > Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
> > varies with at an audio frequency ????
>
> Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics. That's
> almost never. If you're going to change the subject, at least get your
> terms right.
>
> Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?
>

Ooh, ooh ... I think I know that one! To let some really high (z)
electrons on the capsule have muscle when dealing with some knarly
cable capacitance and depressed mic pre inputs (low z). Umm impedance
tranformation?

bobs
BS Studios
we organize chaos
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:22:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1122978389k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>In article <3l8355F114vllU1@individual.net> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:
>
>> Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
>> varies with at an audio frequency ????
>
>Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics. That's
>almost never. If you're going to change the subject, at least get your
>terms right.
>
>Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?

To make money for the manufacturer, of course!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:22:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <dcoa58$4s4$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

> In article <znr1122978389k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >
> >In article <3l8355F114vllU1@individual.net> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:
> >
> >> Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
> >> varies with at an audio frequency ????
> >
> >Since they started putting preamps inside of condenser mics. That's
> >almost never. If you're going to change the subject, at least get your
> >terms right.
> >
> >Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?
>
> To make money for the manufacturer, of course!
> --scott

And they can make even more money by taking the electronics out again!

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:24:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear"

> What do you expect from an outdated piece of trash ?


** Graham Stevenon - describing himself.

Also a narcissist, plagiarist and posturing fake.





......... Phil
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I get the feeling that guys that don't like a 57 on snares and try all
sorts of things to get "other" sounds are very similar to guys that
build monster guitar rigs. They build up a rig with a non Fender or
Marshall amp. Add compression, add distortion, add reverb, add sonic
maximizers, etc, etc, etc.....
The end result? If it ends up good at all, it usually is a close
approximation of a Fender or Marshall when plugged in direct from the
guitar.

I know that there are different kinds of music and about a zillion ways
to mic and record a snare, but a 57 just matches a typical snare drum
sound that's found in most pop music that it's hard NOT to get a decent
sound with one.

It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
or 80s?
later,
m
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:39:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1123014474.629046.324460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
mwood5nospam@yahoo.com wrote:

> I get the feeling that guys that don't like a 57 on snares and try all
> sorts of things to get "other" sounds are very similar to guys that
> build monster guitar rigs. They build up a rig with a non Fender or
> Marshall amp. Add compression, add distortion, add reverb, add sonic
> maximizers, etc, etc, etc.....
> The end result? If it ends up good at all, it usually is a close
> approximation of a Fender or Marshall when plugged in direct from the
> guitar.
>
> I know that there are different kinds of music and about a zillion ways
> to mic and record a snare, but a 57 just matches a typical snare drum
> sound that's found in most pop music that it's hard NOT to get a decent
> sound with one.
>
> It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
> been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
> years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
> or 80s?
> later,
> m
>

The SM-57 is quite sensitive to loading, so the choice of preamp makes a big
difference. They can sound pretty lifeless with a poor preamp. Also, there are
a lot of newer mics made using advanced materials with better frequency response
than the venerable SM-57 and sometimes those do sound better.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:11:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I hear what you're saying...I agree that the 57 has a coloured
frequency response. The thing is that it fits with a snare and
distorted electric guitar very nicely in most rock or pop situations.
I agree that there are mics that might sound better for some things. I
like a Beyer 201 on snares...sometimes. EV has some nice mics that
sound nice on distorted gtr amps....RE18 comes to mind. The Royer
121's are very nice on guitar amps too. But overall, for $80 for a 57,
you can't find a more versatile mic.
Yeah Jay, I agree with your loading statement too. When guys bash the
57, that's the first thing that I think of is that they just haven't
heard a snare drum mic'd with a 57 through an API pre. Or a guitar amp
through another top notch pre. These mics really come to life with a
nice pre.
later,
m
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:43:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chris Hornbeck"

> PV=RT.


** Must be an abbreviation for " PREVERT ".






.......... Phil
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 7:00:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<tymish@hotmail.com> wrote:
>OK if an SM-57 is outdated then a U-47 must be completely archaic and
>should be sent to the scrap heap!

Well, the SM-57 is a useful microphone. But the notion that everything
used for PA has to have a presence peak, that IS archaic.

The presence peak on the SM-57 is what makes it a handy tool, and it is
also what makes it frustrating and annoying at times too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 8:07:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mwood5nospam@yahoo.com wrote:
> I get the feeling that guys that don't like a 57 on snares and try all
> sorts of things to get "other" sounds are very similar to guys that
> build monster guitar rigs. They build up a rig with a non Fender or
> Marshall amp. Add compression, add distortion, add reverb, add sonic
> maximizers, etc, etc, etc.....
> The end result? If it ends up good at all, it usually is a close
> approximation of a Fender or Marshall when plugged in direct from the
> guitar.
>
> I know that there are different kinds of music and about a zillion ways
> to mic and record a snare, but a 57 just matches a typical snare drum
> sound that's found in most pop music that it's hard NOT to get a decent
> sound with one.
>
> It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
> been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
> years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
> or 80s?
> later,
> m
>
57's & 58's get bashed here constantly. Funny thing, though; U2's last
tour...they obviously could have used any mic in the world for
vocals...even mega-expensive studio jobs and just replaced them daily.

Guess what they chose?

jak
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:02:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

somebody better tell that to the guys that love API, Neve, 1176
compressors and just about every other piece of gear out there.
Oh, if you simply mean mics, don't all mics have a "sound"? I want the
characteristics of certain mics...sometimes. Sometimes I might reach
for the most un-coloured gear I've got. I think there's a place for
everything.
It's funny. I'll be the first to admit, a Royer 121 sounds more like
the amp in the room than a 57 when both used at the same time. More
often than not, I'll keep the 57 track b/c it sits better in the mix
and sounds like what I'm after. To me, that's the sound of rock and
roll. If I were recording jazz or classical, I doubt I'd use a 57 as
much.
later,
m
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:03:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1123011377.007267.26220@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> rsmith@bsstudios.com writes:

> > Quiz: What's the function of the electronics inside a consenser mic?

> Ooh, ooh ... I think I know that one! To let some really high (z)
> electrons on the capsule have muscle when dealing with some knarly
> cable capacitance and depressed mic pre inputs (low z). Umm impedance
> tranformation?

Give that man a cigar!

Usually, for the conventional polarized capacitor microphone, the
voltage change vs. SPL at the capsule is greater than the voltage out
the electrical end of the mic, so you actually have a voltage loss in
the guts, not gain. Since the common use of the term "preamp,"
particularly when used in the context of microphones, is something
that has voltage gain. what's inside isn't a preamp. It does have
current gain, so it's an amplifier of sorts, but to call it a preamp
in this context is misleading.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:00:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mwood5nospam@yahoo.com wrote:

> It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
> been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
> years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
> or 80s?

The simple truth is that the '57 has a very coloured frequency response.
Technology has moved on since the days when that level of colouration was
considered acceptable.

Graham
August 3, 2005 2:00:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <42EFDEF3.7A0A9510@hotmail.com>, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

> mwood5nospam@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
> > been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
> > years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
> > or 80s?
>
> The simple truth is that the '57 has a very coloured frequency response.
> Technology has moved on since the days when that level of colouration was
> considered acceptable.
>
> Graham


I don't remember 57 bashing back them. We were happy to have them.

Personally, I always put a 57 along with a couple other mics on the
snare when micing a kit. It ends up staying more than any of the other
obviously more expensive mics that gets put there. It plugged into a
9098 and gets some of its really nice eq.

Same goes when micing a guitar amp. I'll put up some waaay more
expensive mics along with it and if the 57's unique squished tone
sounds the best, we remove the others and use it. If the client asks
which one we kept, I remind em nobody cares if we used an expensive mic
or not. Only that it sounds good. I love my 57's.

It's real nice on congas too.

I have older 57's around. Anyone know first hand if there's a sonic
difference between what Shure ships today and what they shipped 20
years ago? I know the writing on them is different. Hows about what'sa
inside?




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:01:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

tymish@hotmail.com wrote:

> OK if an SM-57 is outdated then a U-47 must be completely archaic and
> should be sent to the scrap heap!

Hint. It's not age that's the problem.

Graham
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:08:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison wrote:

> So, the voltage gain of the whole pre-amp is likely to be no more than
> unity.

IOW, an impedence converter. If you want to call that a
pre-amp, OK, but you'll be pretty much by yourself in so doing.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:34:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:25:13 -0400, david wrote:

> I have older 57's around. Anyone know first hand if there's a sonic
> difference between what Shure ships today and what they shipped 20 years
> ago? I know the writing on them is different. Hows about what'sa inside?

The last time I bought 57s (5 of 'em) no two sounded alike. So It would
surprise the hell outta me if any of the five sounded like a randomly
selected 20 year old model.

But it'd probably be close enough for guitar work. (or drums)
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:06:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers"

>
> Usually, for the conventional polarized capacitor microphone, the
> voltage change vs. SPL at the capsule is greater than the voltage out
> the electrical end of the mic, so you actually have a voltage loss in
> the guts, not gain. Since the common use of the term "preamp,"
> particularly when used in the context of microphones, is something
> that has voltage gain. what's inside isn't a preamp. It does have
> current gain, so it's an amplifier of sorts, but to call it a preamp
> in this context is misleading.
>


** That is utter bullshit - you asinine PARROT BRAINED MORON !!





........... Phil
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:06:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3lan53F11iof5U1@individual.net> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:

> ** That is utter bullshit - you asinine PARROT BRAINED MORON !!

This could be a regular feature of the wikipedia audio web site. Go
for it.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:10:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain"


** Look which psychotic, over snipping, context shifting, PITA moron pops
up now.



> Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> So, the voltage gain of the whole pre-amp is likely to be no more than
>> unity.
>
> IOW, an impedence converter.


** A simple auto-transformer is that.

So a totally inadequate and hence incorrect name for what lies inside most
condenser mics.



> If you want to call that a pre-amp,


** No, I do not call auto-transformers "pre amps".


As I told the Brain Dead Parrott:


The industry calls them " pre-amps" - you asinine POS !!!!

What does AKG call their model 451 ??

Why do AKG et alia refer to condenser mics as having " FET pre-amps " ??

Because that is what they are.




.......... Phil
August 4, 2005 12:41:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:D cq1j40rlg@enews4.newsguy.com:

>
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> So, the voltage gain of the whole pre-amp is likely to be no more than
>> unity.
>
> IOW, an impedence converter. If you want to call that a
> pre-amp, OK, but you'll be pretty much by yourself in so doing.
>
>
> Bob


Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than unity
gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K look-alikes, such
as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.

Perahps down the line you can surprise eveyone by saying something that is
correct for a change, instead of just blowing hot air and BS out of that
piehole in your face.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:41:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

my2cents <distortion@doppler.com> wrote:
>
>Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
>microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than unity
>gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K look-alikes, such
>as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.

Are you sure? All of my B&K docs call them "Followers" rather than
preamplifiers, presumably because they have voltage follower circuits
inside.

I don't know about the clones.

Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:41:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <OZ9Ie.811274$ub.176329@fe07.news.easynews.com> distortion@doppler.com writes:

> Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
> microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than unity
> gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K look-alikes, such
> as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.

Can we say that "preamplifier" has two meanings, one to microphone
manufacturers who don't care about anything beyond the output
connector, and the other to people who buy studio equipment and need
something to connect their microphones to?

Oh, and a third meaning just for Phil Allison to start arguments
about.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:59:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
> confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
> is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
> styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."

I'd call it a buffer amplifier to reflect its real function
while discriminating it from what is usually meant by
pre-amplifier: a variable gain amplifier used prior to a
system input to bring a signal to the level expected by that
input. "Buffer" has plenty of precedent in engineering for
describing follower amplifiers.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 5:09:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

jakdedert wrote:

> mwood5nospam@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I get the feeling that guys that don't like a 57 on snares and try all
> > sorts of things to get "other" sounds are very similar to guys that
> > build monster guitar rigs. They build up a rig with a non Fender or
> > Marshall amp. Add compression, add distortion, add reverb, add sonic
> > maximizers, etc, etc, etc.....
> > The end result? If it ends up good at all, it usually is a close
> > approximation of a Fender or Marshall when plugged in direct from the
> > guitar.
> >
> > I know that there are different kinds of music and about a zillion ways
> > to mic and record a snare, but a 57 just matches a typical snare drum
> > sound that's found in most pop music that it's hard NOT to get a decent
> > sound with one.
> >
> > It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
> > been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
> > years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
> > or 80s?
> > later,
> > m
>
> 57's & 58's get bashed here constantly. Funny thing, though; U2's last
> tour...they obviously could have used any mic in the world for
> vocals...even mega-expensive studio jobs and just replaced them daily.
>
> Guess what they chose?

I've heard it said they have different capsules inside. I can't imagine any
decent performer actually wanting such a POS.

Graham
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 5:22:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> my2cents <distortion@doppler.com> wrote:
>
>>Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
>>microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than unity
>>gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K look-alikes, such
>>as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.
>
>
> Are you sure? All of my B&K docs call them "Followers" rather than
> preamplifiers, presumably because they have voltage follower circuits
> inside.
>
> I don't know about the clones.
>
> Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
> confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
> is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
> styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."
> --scott

Bleem is fershlugginer.

What about "capsule amplifiers"? Has ta be pronounced like Levon
Helm did in "The Right Stuff", tho - cap-sooool.

--
Les Cargill
August 4, 2005 6:50:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
news:D crk2b$5pi$1@panix2.panix.com:

> my2cents <distortion@doppler.com> wrote:
>>
>>Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
>>microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than
>>unity gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K
>>look-alikes, such as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.
>
> Are you sure? All of my B&K docs call them "Followers" rather than
> preamplifiers, presumably because they have voltage follower circuits
> inside.
>
> I don't know about the clones.
>
> Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
> confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
> is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
> styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."
> --scott

It doesn't matter what you like. Words have meaning, especially when they
have been used exclusively in a specific context for nearly four decades.
If you are unaware of the terminology, then you are as ignorant as Bob Cain
and that's your problem. Nonetheless, you are certainly free to use
whatever incorrect/non-standard terminology you wish.

You are partially correct and I stand partially corrected. In their 1962
catalog Bruel & Kjaer do in fact refer to the tube-based 2615 as a cathode
follower. However, in their 1968 catalog they refer to the 2615 as a
cathode follower and to the 2619, which was the solid-state successor to
the 1615, as a microphone preamplifier. Since that time, all solid state
successors to the 2615 have been referred to as microphone preamplifiers,
not only by Bruel & Kjaer but by all of the manufacturers who make B&K
look-alike microphone capsules and accessories. If you want to verify
this, all you need to do is to take a look at any Bruel & Kjaer catalog
that was published in 1968 or later, and do a Google search for ACO
Pacific, Larson Davis and GRAS.
August 4, 2005 7:13:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1123107061k@trad:

>
> In article <OZ9Ie.811274$ub.176329@fe07.news.easynews.com>
> distortion@doppler.com writes:
>
>> Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
>> microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than
>> unity gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K
>> look-alikes, such as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.
>
> Can we say that "preamplifier" has two meanings, one to microphone
> manufacturers who don't care about anything beyond the output
> connector, and the other to people who buy studio equipment and need
> something to connect their microphones to?
>
> Oh, and a third meaning just for Phil Allison to start arguments
> about.

Ignorance is bliss and many of the sudio people such as yourself appear to
have both in abundance. The issue isn't about the meaning of the term
"premaplifier" nor is about whether manufacturer's do or don't care about
anything beyond the output connector. The issue is about the present
correct and traditionally-correct meaning of the term "microphone
preamplifier" which connects to a capacitive microphone capsule and has
less than unity gain.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 10:30:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:D cs3rk02vt4@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
> > confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
> > is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
> > styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."
>
> I'd call it a buffer amplifier to reflect its real function
> while discriminating it from what is usually meant by
> pre-amplifier: a variable gain amplifier used prior to a
> system input to bring a signal to the level expected by that
> input. "Buffer" has plenty of precedent in engineering for
> describing follower amplifiers.

Another term that has seen some use: "head amplifiers". Not as meaningful as
"buffer amplifier", but at least there's precedent for it.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:03:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

my2cents <distortion@doppler.com> wrote:
>
>It doesn't matter what you like. Words have meaning, especially when they
>have been used exclusively in a specific context for nearly four decades.
>If you are unaware of the terminology, then you are as ignorant as Bob Cain
>and that's your problem. Nonetheless, you are certainly free to use
>whatever incorrect/non-standard terminology you wish.

The problem is, as I point out, that there is no real standard terminology.
Different manufacturers have used different words to mean the same thing.
This, I am sorry to say, is a very common failing in the audio industry.

>You are partially correct and I stand partially corrected. In their 1962
>catalog Bruel & Kjaer do in fact refer to the tube-based 2615 as a cathode
>follower. However, in their 1968 catalog they refer to the 2615 as a
>cathode follower and to the 2619, which was the solid-state successor to
>the 1615, as a microphone preamplifier. Since that time, all solid state
>successors to the 2615 have been referred to as microphone preamplifiers,
>not only by Bruel & Kjaer but by all of the manufacturers who make B&K
>look-alike microphone capsules and accessories. If you want to verify
>this, all you need to do is to take a look at any Bruel & Kjaer catalog
>that was published in 1968 or later, and do a Google search for ACO
>Pacific, Larson Davis and GRAS.

I'll take your word for it, because again it does seem like a perfectly
reasonable use. The problem is that there have been a bunch of other
uses as well. (This is made worse in the case of some manufacturers by
translation problems).

Is Norsonics still making a Type I mike?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:31:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ynfIe.721888$Cl1.639384@fe03.news.easynews.com> distortion@doppler.com writes:

> In their 1962
> catalog Bruel & Kjaer do in fact refer to the tube-based 2615 as a cathode
> follower. However, in their 1968 catalog they refer to the 2615 as a
> cathode follower and to the 2619, which was the solid-state successor to
> the 1615, as a microphone preamplifier. Since that time, all solid state
> successors to the 2615 have been referred to as microphone preamplifiers,
> not only by Bruel & Kjaer but by all of the manufacturers who make B&K
> look-alike microphone capsules and accessories.

Don't you guys have anything better to do than look up stuff that
proves that Phil is correct?

I think my local Guitar Center carries some B&K mics. Today I'll go in
there and ask to look at some preamplifiers and see if they pull apart
a B&K and say "here's a really nice one."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:31:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <eJfIe.884596$3V6.133736@fe04.news.easynews.com> distortion@doppler.com writes:

> Ignorance is bliss and many of the sudio people such as yourself appear to
> have both in abundance.

Insult noted.

> The issue isn't about the meaning of the term
> "premaplifier" nor is about whether manufacturer's do or don't care about
> anything beyond the output connector. The issue is about the present
> correct and traditionally-correct meaning of the term "microphone
> preamplifier" which connects to a capacitive microphone capsule and has
> less than unity gain.

Traditions change. (I study folklore) Sometimes it's in a good way,
sometimes they promulgate inaccuracy and confusion. When you can ask
a group of people who actively use a certain related group of
technological products what they understand a "preamp" to be, I
believe the majority will point to the box that goes between a
microphone (the device) and a recorder or another amplifier.

If you were to lay out some of the colloquial "preamp" devices and
some condenser microphone bodies without capsules and ask which is the
"preamplifier" then they might get the idea that you're trying to
prove something.

I think that accepting common usage when it doesn't confuse those
using the term is fair. The term for this is "jargon." We use a lot of
it in audio. It isn't all technically correct, and it's possible to be
more technically accurate, but we aren't always that stuffy.





--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
August 5, 2005 12:42:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
news:D ct77h$o0t$1@panix2.panix.com:

> my2cents <distortion@doppler.com> wrote:
>>
>>It doesn't matter what you like. Words have meaning, especially when
>>they have been used exclusively in a specific context for nearly four
>>decades. If you are unaware of the terminology, then you are as
>>ignorant as Bob Cain and that's your problem. Nonetheless, you are
>>certainly free to use whatever incorrect/non-standard terminology you
>>wish.
>
> The problem is, as I point out, that there is no real standard
> terminology. Different manufacturers have used different words to mean
> the same thing. This, I am sorry to say, is a very common failing in
> the audio industry.
>
>>You are partially correct and I stand partially corrected. In their
>>1962 catalog Bruel & Kjaer do in fact refer to the tube-based 2615 as
>>a cathode follower. However, in their 1968 catalog they refer to the
>>2615 as a cathode follower and to the 2619, which was the solid-state
>>successor to the 1615, as a microphone preamplifier. Since that time,
>>all solid state successors to the 2615 have been referred to as
>>microphone preamplifiers, not only by Bruel & Kjaer but by all of the
>>manufacturers who make B&K look-alike microphone capsules and
>>accessories. If you want to verify this, all you need to do is to
>>take a look at any Bruel & Kjaer catalog that was published in 1968 or
>>later, and do a Google search for ACO Pacific, Larson Davis and GRAS.
>
> I'll take your word for it, because again it does seem like a
> perfectly reasonable use. The problem is that there have been a bunch
> of other uses as well. (This is made worse in the case of some
> manufacturers by translation problems).
>
> Is Norsonics still making a Type I mike?
> --scott
>
That would seem to be the case, and they too refer to their NOR-1201 as a
"microphone preamplifier" which you can bet has just a slight bit less than
unity gain.
http://www.scantekinc.com/mics.htm
August 5, 2005 1:11:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1123157894k@trad:


snip.....snip

> Traditions change. (I study folklore) Sometimes it's in a good way,
> sometimes they promulgate inaccuracy and confusion. When you can ask
> a group of people who actively use a certain related group of
> technological products what they understand a "preamp" to be, I
> believe the majority will point to the box that goes between a
> microphone (the device) and a recorder or another amplifier.

I agree, and that would be my answer as well. But, the issue is not what
is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term "preamplifier," the
issue is what is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term
"microphone preamplifier." If you look into it, you will find that the
latter is associated exclusively with acoustic measurement technology,
whereas the former is associated exclusively with electronics.


> If you were to lay out some of the colloquial "preamp" devices and
> some condenser microphone bodies without capsules and ask which is the
> "preamplifier" then they might get the idea that you're trying to
> prove something.
>
> I think that accepting common usage when it doesn't confuse those
> using the term is fair. The term for this is "jargon." We use a lot of
> it in audio. It isn't all technically correct, and it's possible to be
> more technically accurate, but we aren't always that stuffy.

We are all fortunate that the aerospace scientists and engineers that
design those jumbo jets don't share your perspective.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:10:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <IvvIe.918581$3V6.768138@fe04.news.easynews.com> doppler@distortion.com writes:

> But, the issue is not what
> is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term "preamplifier," the
> issue is what is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term
> "microphone preamplifier."

This is where we diverge. I can correct people who say "phase" when
they mean "polarity inversion" all I want, but that won't make the
common (and incorrect) usage of the term "phase" to mean swapping pins
2 and 2 (going into the mic preamplifier <g>). Sometimes you just have
to accept the common meaning as being what's undertood, and when
you write your book about microphone construction and studio system
engineering, you can struggle about which of the two devices you'll
probably mention that you call the microphone preamplifier.

> We are all fortunate that the aerospace scientists and engineers that
> design those jumbo jets don't share your perspective.

Oh I dunno. I think we get plenty of space shuttle jargon on the news,
terms that we don't really know what they mean, but we know what the
pictures look like.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:02:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mwood5nospam@yahoo.com wrote:

> somebody better tell that to the guys that love API, Neve, 1176
> compressors and just about every other piece of gear out there.

Since you *totally* trimmed my previous post i didn't see what you were
replying to initially !

Let me see now.....

Do compressors have a coloured frequency response ? Err... NO !

>
> Oh, if you simply mean mics, don't all mics have a "sound"? I want the
> characteristics of certain mics...sometimes. Sometimes I might reach
> for the most un-coloured gear I've got. I think there's a place for
> everything.
> It's funny. I'll be the first to admit, a Royer 121 sounds more like
> the amp in the room than a 57 when both used at the same time. More
> often than not, I'll keep the 57 track b/c it sits better in the mix
> and sounds like what I'm after. To me, that's the sound of rock and
> roll. If I were recording jazz or classical, I doubt I'd use a 57 as
> much.

Look, 57s and 58s stink IMHO. The worst of it is that so many ppl keep
buying the wretched things when so much better is available - and often
because ppl, who *should* know better keep telling them to !

I well recall some clown recommending to a club I work with that they
should have lots of 58s and 57s and have a 31 band graphic on all the desk
outs. Yeah - I thought - you'll need the graphics to iron out the response
of the effing *mics* !

For comparison - when I had my own PA 'rig' I had quite 'clean' mics and a
very accurate speaker system.

For some curious reason ? I found that rarely was *much* eq ever needed to
make things sound right. Then again. if you think about it maybe I was just
taking a simple, clever route to sonic accuracy ? I never ever used or even
*wanted* a graphic either. I had no shortage of pleased customers. In
comparison I find I'm always fighting a Shure mic.

Graham
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:02:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison wrote:

> YOU are simply NOT sane.
>
> A massive embarrassment to your employers.

Oh sure ! La Di da !

And you're a massive embarrassment to Usenet !

Graham
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 4:38:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"my2cents"
(snip)
>
> But, the issue is not what
> is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term "preamplifier," the
> issue is what is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term
> "microphone preamplifier."


** Have you forgotten the actual phrase that so *outraged* the brainless
parrot ??

In relation to the Josephson C42 condenser mic, I posted this rhetorical
question to Scott Dorsey:


" Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with an audio frequency ???? "



Please note:

1. It specifically refers to the electronics hidden *inside* a mic's handle
!!!

2. That electronics has several functions - polarising the capsule with a
suitable DC voltage, providing it with an ultra high impedance load,
generating a low impedance balanced output from the resulting signal and
deriving its own DC power from the same output wires.

So, as long as you read the whole post, no possible confusion exists with
other audio electronic items that might share the generic title "pre-amp" .


BTW

There has been no answer to my rhetorical question from Dorsey.

The Brainless Parrot created his blatant "red herring" to hide his
colleague's dumb error.




.......... Phil
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:23:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)"


** This asinine "Morgon" cretin makes even dead canaries look like
geniuses.








.......... Phil
!